'58 Remington usage question

[spacecoast]

I've read that one reason that Civil War soldiers liked the Remington New Model Army, maybe better than the equivalent Colt 1860 Army, is that it was easier to switch out an empty cylinder with a full one and get it back into action faster without disassembling the gun. But I've also heard it said that this didn't really happen all that often in practice.

If soldiers indeed carried spare loaded cylinders, is it likely that the caps were also put in place on the nipples, or would they have had to do that at the time of use? If not, it seems like it might have negated much of the advantage.

By the way, I just bought a Cabelas spare for my '58 Pietta Remington and it fits perfectly. It came with a caution sheet - leave the caps OFF the loaded cylinder until it's in the gun.

[g.willikers]

From what I've read, the more common solution to having more than five or six shots from a revolver was having more guns.
The guerrilla riders carried as many as six.
Trying to change cylinders on horseback would have to have been a disaster.

[4V50 Gary]

I've six (6) six shelves bookcases filled with books on the Civil War. Not once have I ever read of anyone carrying a spare cylinder. Then again, I've not read much on cavalry actions or the war in the Trans-Mississippi.

[Hawg]

There are people that will argue about it til they're blue in the face. They think because it can be done now it was done then but there's no record of it, no evidence of it, no written accounts of it except for one story about a pony express rider that most likely had a Paterson which could be bought with extra cylinders. You have to remember cylinders were hand fitted to each gun back then and finding two that would interchange without problems would be iffy. Some cased sets of SAA's came with an extra cylinder but these weren't common carry guns and came after the percussion era. There are numerous records of cavalrymen carrying extra revolvers. Why would they do that if swapping cylinders was such an easy task? Officers and cavalry troopers were the only ones that carried pistols. An officer likely wouldn't need extra firepower and I can't imagine trying to swap a cylinder from a walking horse much less one at a full gallop.

[44 Dave]

The cylinder is only "charged" with powder and bullet and loaded when capped.

[RJay]

US Military ( nor CSA )did not carry extra extra cylinders in the civil war , That is a a movie stunt. The Confederate Raiders carried up to six and sometimes more Colt revolvers . The Remington was liked because it was a good gun and was easier to break down for cleaning.. In all my reading I have never read that any westerner carried extra cylinders nor do the Colt records show any separate orders of spare cylinders. Only Clint Eastwood carried extra cylinders, but then again he was a time traveler and was able to use guns that were non existent in his moves timeframes.

[Model12Win]

I have a brass frame 4" bbl '58 remy that is the confederate style. They were reloaded with extra cylinders that is why they are so great and are MUCH stronger than the colt which could blow up. The confeds liked them because they were not smart enough to make steel yet.

These are the kinds of things one can find on these threads. Today, reproduction percussion revolvers are so available that there are many dunces out there who would rather make up history than actually research what was done, and what the guns were actually like.

[Branko]

If it was done, you'd find spare cylinders lying about in the battlefields and records of spare cylinders being purchased. You can't, so clearly it wasn't done with any regularity at all. While you can reload a Remington really quick with a cylinder swap, I could reload a Colt a whole lot faster then you can swap cylinders on a Remington by simply grabbing the other one There's no risk of dropping anything, nor is there any problem with carrying a loaded and capped cylinder (remember, their percussion caps were more volatile then ours).

The only real advantage in the Remington which I see in terms of a battlefield weapon, are twofold: the frame is stronger. No, the Colt won't blow up, but if you drop a Remington or club someone over the head with it, it's more likely to work fine aftewards. Second, it's not likely to get jammed by cap fragments, which is possible on a Colt. Really, that's more or less it. Possibly the Remington is easier to fully disassemble for cleaning, but neither gun has a substantial advantage there.

The rest of the stuff is personal preference. The sights are in both cases effective for battlefield use but one could prefer one or the other, the grips of X or Y might fit you better individually, and so on.

[Hawg]

I don't think cap jams were a problem back then. Caps were made from copper and somewhat thicker than modern caps.

[horseman308]

Originally Posted by Hawg

I can't imagine trying to swap a cylinder from a walking horse much less one at a full gallop.

I've got a 58 Remmy and plenty of saddle time. While I haven't tried to actually swap cylinders while riding, I can easily imagine the difficulty, and it would be considerable. With a great horse with a smooth gait, like a Tennessee Walker, it might be doable if you're a very talented and coordinated person with years of experience. On your average Quarter Horse or generic saddle horse whose gaits are less gentle .... No thank you.

[spacecoast]

Good discussion gentlemen, thank you. I might also point out that the '58 has notches for resting the hammer between chambers.

[foolzrushn]

And a more secure way of carrying a pistol with all six cylinder holes loaded might be enough reason to prefer a Remington.

The choice might be to only load five and forgo the sixth shot, or carry a Remington to get all six shots.

I can't imagine carrying three loaded pistols, some of which were just stuck in the belt, but I think that they did.

[Branko]

With a gun belt (the period styled type which doesn't go through the loops in the pants, not a modern one) it's pretty easy to carry two or two with a couple of spare cylinders.

At any rate, it is the best and quickest way to reload. As far as carrying 5 vs 6, the Colt also had those pins and they were both clearly intended to be loaded with six. But yes, the Remington was safer to carry fully loaded.

During wartime "you might have an accidental discharge if you drop it" sounds pretty hollow. When we do it for sport that is another matter.

[Hawg]

I can't imagine carrying three loaded pistols, some of which were just stuck in the belt, but I think that they did.

Some carried as many as eight.

[BlackPowderBen]

They had a lot of cleaning to do!

[RJay]

They didn't carry all those pistols on their belt, perhaps two, the rest were in saddle holsters or pommels, Two in front on either side and if they could get them , four more in saddle holsters, two on either side on the rear of the saddle plus at least one shotgun, sometimes two. It wasn't until the Union started issueing repeating carbines ( Spencers ) that the Union cavalry became effective.

[Model12Win]

They had a lot of cleaning to do!

With what them boys had to do, I bet cleaning was the last thing on their minds.

While we treat these as simple toys today, for the men that carried these guns "for real" back then, it was deadly serious business.

[Hellgate]

You have to keep in mind that only a few years prior, the only handguns were SINGLE SHOTS. To have a "six shooter" was a huge advancement. The percussion revolvers were never intended for sustained shooting. Typically one had a single shot pistol and a huge (Bowie type) fighting knife. With a six shooter you were very well armed with SIX TIMES the fire power of most opponents so quick reloading was not even a consideration. After 6 shots the revolver was put away (for cleaning and reloading later) and if more fighting was to occur you drew your knife, sword, or another revolver. I read somewhere [and everything you read on the internet is true ] that there was never a documented fatality of a Confederate irregular that ever fell to a Union sword. The irregulars/geurillas, as previously stated, carried multiple revolvers & sawed off shotguns against the Union cavalry. Six shots fired, draw another and shoot the guy (a Yank) who took a knife to a gunfight. All the fuss about dealing with fouling during CAS/SASS matches is due to the design of the guns to only be fired 6 times and the cleaned. The cartridge revolvers didn't really become popular til the mid to late 1870s hence the two gun rig for those who were considering a longer shootout.

[Hawg]

I have read stories about when they fired a gun empty they just dropped it and pulled another then after the battle went back and tried to find them or if they fought against cavalry just took them off the dead.

[Hellgate]

Hawg,
I'd think that they were a valuable enough commodity that one would at least try to reholster them before drawing another one. There's no guarantee you are gonna get back to the battlefield to scavenge the dead, especially if the Union won the battle. I'm betting the hung on to them if possible.

[Model12Win]

Most soldiers did not use revolvers. Some of the officers did.

They were mainly cavalry guns.

[Hawg]

Just relating what I remember reading.

[campingnights]

Wouldn't the revolvers be a might pricey for the average soldier? Seems like most would stick with issued arms, plus battlefield salvage?

[Hawg]

Wouldn't the revolvers be a might pricey for the average soldier? Seems like most would stick with issued arms, plus battlefield salvage?

Infantry were issued sidearms at the very beginning of the war but what weren't sent home were discarded. An infantryman isn't going to carry one single pound more than he has to. Many of them even tossed their bayonets. Like Model12 said cavalry and officers were the only ones that carried revolvers. Extra pistols were battlefield pickups.

[Branko]

I remember reading somewhere how a British officer noted with displeasure that civil war cavalry was not using proper cavalry tactics and could be better called revolver cavalry.

Don't remember where it was, though.